Next time someone tells you that the right wing is unfairly treated in the mass media, start reading from this list. Challenge them to match these names
with left-wing pundits who have equivalent access to the public debate -- not tepid centrists who rally 'round the status quo, but leaders of and
advocates for progressive movements, as unabashed in their politics to the left as these conservative voices are to the right. Chances are, you'll soon
be listening to dead air.

*a4a: The purpose these folks serve is to "manufacture consent" in the classic fashion pointed out by Noam Chomsky; the views represented are
center-right and hard-right (see above), with that comprising the "continuum" of acceptable discourse -- the left is entirely absent from this process,
which allows considerable shaping and control of media content to suit the needs of the power elite in our society. Pay careful attention to what the
following centrist or right-of-center "moderates" say, and gain an understanding that they're certainly not the leftists they're portrayed to be!*

Much of AIM's work is dedicated to getting those they disagree with fired. In 1982, AIM engaged in a campaign against Raymond Bonner of the
New York Times, criticizing the Central Americacorrespondent for reporting that U.S.-trained troops had massacred civilians at the Salvadoran
village of El Mozote. AIM and its media allies (notably the Wall Street Journal editorial page) were successful in getting Bonner removed from his
beat; years later, U.N. excavations at the site confirmed his story (Extra! 1-2/93).

This censorious attitude is linked to the group's disdain for the First Amendment: AIM used to offer as a premium the book Target America, by
AIM board member James L. Tyson, which proposed that mandatory government "ombudsmen" be placed at each of the major networks to ensure
"accuracy" and "fairness" when dealing with "large, difficult questions."

AIM has frequently criticized media coverage of its corporate backers (for example, oil and chemical interests), but much of Irvine's advocacy has
little or nothing to do with media. In the 1990s, he urged the use of napalm against Salvadoran guerrillas (AIM Reports, 3/90), as well as
encouraging the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq during the Persian Gulf crisis (Seattle Times, 1/16/91)....

The MRC's main publication is MediaWatch. It also publishes the MediaNomics newsletter, part of MRC's Free Market Project, devoted to
explaining "what the media tell Americans about free enterprise." Notable Quotables is the MRC's "bi-weekly compilation of the most outrageous
examples of bias," but it often reads more like a collection of statements the MRC does not agree with....

But the main analytical technique used by the Center -- the counting of "thematic messages" -- is extremely dubious, eliminating all messages that fail
to make an explicit statement of opinion...this technique often produces highly distorted findings....

While the CMPA is often described at "non-partisan," it certainly seems to be a conservative project. Fundraising letters for the launch of the Center
contained endorsements from the likes of Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson. Support for the group comes from the most prominent right-wing foundations, like Olin, Coors and
Scaife. While Robert Lichter has said that "it's not in a scholar's
blood to have an ideology," he's also criticized journalists like Peter Arnett for "seeming themselves as citizens of the world" rather than as patriotic
Americans, according to an AP report (4/27/91).

I think the liberalmedia thing primarily addresses how regular reporters ask questions and write articles. I agree with you that when it comes to over the top unabashed opinions being expressed, conservatives dominate the market. When it comes to supposedly unbiased interviews and articles, however, I do think there is a bit of a leftist leaning. I don't think it is as pronounced as a lot of conservatives make it out to be, however. Routinely, I hear liberal politicians making assertions which go unchallenged, whereas there will be followup questions challenging conservatives. That's what sells, though. Conservatives railing against the system. You can't sell that POV without something to rail against.

Addendum 09-15-2005

The actions of the media in more recent times, along with the continuing redrawing of ideological lines has made me rethink a few things. The reality is that in the media, the liberals have won. They won a long time ago. What we have in the media are warring liberal factions. Both camps believe in government control over people's lives, though they each have their own agendas regarding emphasis. All the popular parties believe in using the government as a force to redesign the world as they see fit. They only differ in the details. The old conservative movement, as espoused by Robert Taft is dead. I think that conservatism really morphed into something different following World War II. That war changed a lot of people's minds about what government should and should not do. No real small government conservatives served as President after that, though they did still speak the rhetoric for a while. With George W. Bush, we finally have an end to the rhetoric. He doesn't even speak small government. He is the most effectively liberal President ever to occupy the office. That's one of the reason he gets a pass on so many things from the media.

The media loves government programs. Perhaps this is because big stories are made bigger by government. Oppressive governments cause famine and war quite frequently, and these are exciting stories to watch. I don't think this is a conscious thought on the part of journalists. I don't think they say to themselves "I hope a lot of people die horribly today," but I think there is a small part of them which does, just so they can be in the middle of the action, sort of like how a part of a lot of people wants to see a disaster happen, just to see it. Just like a lot of people watch NASCAR for the wrecks.

The corporate American media is not liberal. Just think of how quickly their news outlets began to beat the drum of war when it became clear George W. Bush's eyes were set on invading Iraq. The absence of rational debate about whether or not a war should take place, the lack of coverage of the anti-war movement, and the media's reliance on journalists embedded with the US military shows where the bias lay.

The people who own media outlets want their political views to be reflected in the coverage of those media outlets. It's no coincidence that Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a staunch conservative, is conservative as well. If you own something, you can make it say what you want, and you can make it leave out what you want.

In this respect, the liberal media in Americais a myth: although there exist individual reporters who are certainly left wing, the ownership is conservative.

In another way, the liberal media is very much alive. It is a media that is not necessarily left wing, but that is free of corporate control.